World War II Online is a Massively Multiplayer Online First Person Shooter based in Western Europe between 1939 and 1943. Through land, sea, and air combat using a ultra-realistic game engine, combined with a strategic layer, in the largest game world ever created - We offer the best WWII simulation experience around.

OKW is happy to share these fine officers who have done so much for us, and to share the updated basic training manuals we have developed over the past several years to help with basic training that is applicable to recruits on both sides. The new joint training protocols are designed to have trainers teach the basics and then hand cadets back off to their respective commands for continued on the job training regarding side specific tactics and strategy unique to each side.
We all want to face worthy opponents each day who test us to our limits and make us better as a result . OKW FULLY SUPPORTS THIS PROGRAM! Any Axis officers who would like to join the training command are encouraged to contact me (or Coila or Inbtutus) to learn more.
LaFleur -AXIS CinC

Hispania250 is pretty active Axis / can use separate discord channel for voice comms and squad channel for text, all in Spanish. Squad members can repost/relay English comms to other squad members. Maybe join forces to creat more critical mass

I have to agree with @XOOMthat we will need some time recruit, rebuild and reorganize AHC and GHC a fashion that will suit the new 1.36 environment. We won’t be there on Day 1 - we can plan and prepare for it in advance all we like, but we will have to have a shake down period to see what we really need in HC. Starting off with two ground divisions will be fine - we can make adjustments after we get a Campaign under our belt.
In all honesty, right now both HCs are so understaffed that it will still be a challenge just to keep the movable divisions wecwill have effectively deployed during the first 1.36 campaign anyway. The Navy and Air commands in particular just have a handful of officers, and in the 1.36 environment these must be built back up to provide the ingame leadership these branches will need.
The key to making 1.36 a success is to build up the squads so they again have critical mass to run ops - either on their own or working together with other squads on agreed objectives. Healthy squads will give us a pool of active players and leaders that we can incorporate into a more robust, fun and effective HC for both sides.
The unique factor that makes this game what it is working together as team to achieve tactical and strategic objectives against equally matched REAL opponents that are worthy of the effort. WW2OL is not a lone wolf eye candy tits and gore first person shooter; it’s not a test of how fast you can manipulate a game console. This game has depth, endless replay interest, quality historical accuracy and physics, multiple layers to appeal to different interests, and a real sense of community. THAT’s why so many of us are still here after 15 years and passionate enough to spend our time arguing about how to improve it. Let’s not forget that.
For now, we all need to put our shoulders behind 1.36 and take advantage of this opportunity to keep growing the game. THEN we can figure out how to make it even better.
LaFleur - AXIS CINC

I agree that as size of playable area increases, it would be worthwhile to look at the number of Army Divisions per side. We want to have action and see the front line move in more than one area of the map at a time. Two divisions may not be sufficient for this given restrictions on moving units of one division more than one link away from another. We can see how initial roll-out performs with town supply - CRS can always make changes as necessary based on actual experience. But I have no problem starting off with two - good idea -to start small, and a lot easier to add something later than to take it away.
If at some point we went with three divisions, perhaps we could figure out way to keep them each within a certain zone - north, central, south, to avoid having big stacks aggregated that have to be (and can only be) moved by HC. If the goal is to have movable divisions available to support player-driven AOs, then they need to be close to each front - takes a lot of HC time and effort to get a unit moved from North to South even behind the lines in short timers, and everyone with an AO in progress will be clamoring for them. Could do something like that even without hard-coding - just make it a standing rule that no more than one division at a time can be engaged on any particular AO/DO, or that a particular division can’t be moved north or south of a certain line.
But having more than one movable division to cover any one part of the front could make the movable units too much of a determining factor on whether an AO is successful, which runs counter to player-driven AO concept and puts HC back on the hot seat to move supply all the time to really make things happen. I suppose we will just have to see how things play out with two movable divisions and then assess whether any adjustments are needed necessary down the road.
LaFleur -AXIS CinC

Great discussion - please understand GHC is just trying to create enthusiasm and good gameplay for our Axis PB. Whether we are defending or attacking makes no difference to me, but the game is designed so that red or blue flags over the towns are how we keep score (and how the PB judges the success or failure of their efforts as a team/side.). We can’t sit on our hands and just duke it out over a static front line. This is not WW1 online.
We take risks to keep it fun and get people invested and motivated to keep playing - and when our gambles fail it just gives us another challenge to have fun rallying to come back. I changed up the deployments last two maps to encourage that sort of action at the beginning - just to keep things interesting. I think it has been fun - and I would say that even if Allies were still in Luxembourg today and the South was all blue and I was on an 0-3 streak instead. Thanks to all for contributing to this thread - great to see so many folks that are passionate about the game and take time to understand its complexity.
LaFleur - CinC / Axis

Yes - there was whole bureaucracy behind the scenes in HC that most players never were aware of - way too much of it IMHO - made HC more a job than it needed to be. One beneficial side effect of the lower numbers in HC is that we can now rebuild it in more flexible (and fun) format and allow people with different strengths to contribute in different ways instead of burdening them with jobs they aren't suited for as a condition of serving . Some folks are great leaders on the ground, some excel at strategy, some like support roles. Some like taking the Map, some don't. Have to be able to accommodate each type and allow them to serve in roles they are comfortable with in order to grow our HC ranks and keep things rolling (and fun) in game. Just my two cents worth.
LaFleur